The NY Times endorses Obama:
Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation’s future truly hangs in the balance.
The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens – whether they are fleeing a hurricane’s floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.
As tough as the times are, the selection of a new president is easy. After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States.
Pretty safe choice when 90% of Americans think the country is heading in the wrong direction. They aren’t going to alienate many people with that decision. Does raise the question, should newspapers endorse candidates?
Or perhaps more specifically, should the “liberal media”[*] endorse a candidate that is almost certain to win? Would an Obama presidency be more effective if he received no endorsement from the NY Times?
[*] When I got married, my family came to the US for the wedding. My brother was stunned to discover that Americans thought of the NY Times as liberal, having considered it quite conservative all of his life.
Here is a map of newspaper endorsements in the US. Kind of interesting how few there are for McCain. I think newspapers dont want to offend their market. I can recall being shocked how political the Supreme Court was and how their decisions always fitted in with the politics of the time. I think it is the same for newspapers, their content is tempered by what their consuming public’s politics.
Respectfully disagreeing with your suggestion that newspapers don’t want to offend, I think that all forms of media, including newspapers, attract attention when they are outlandish and partisan. The strength of Fox isn’t just in offering a socially conservative perspective but in the hyperbole that goes with it. Indeed, I suspect that the question is not to ask why the US media is becoming more partisan, but how they managed to keep up the semblance of forced balance for so long.
A comment piece from the FT sort-of arguing along the same lines: Shock: Drudge loses his grip on US media!